Which information security objective(s) could be put at risk if the alternative safeguards recommended by the FGDC guidelines are applied? Explain how the objective(s) is put at risk by the mitigation(s).
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If the FGDC guidelines recommend summarizing sensitive geospatial data to protect confidentiality, the resulting summary might lack the detail necessary for accurate decision-making, impacting the integrity and usability of the data. To address these risks, it’s crucial to carefully balance the need for data protection with the need to maintain its utility. This involves implementing safeguards that effectively protect sensitive information without unduly compromising data accuracy, availability, or usability. Regular reviews and updates to safeguard measures can help ensure they continue to meet security objectives while aligning with operational needs.
Confidentiality, the loss to unauthorized access of confidential or proprietary information/data is at risk to the alternative safeguards set forth by the FGDC. One of the FGDC’s safeguards is to change the data intended for dissemination by aggregating, summarizing, or classifying particularly sensitive information. This is meant to deal specifically deal with the information itself but it does not stop threat actors or foreign adversaries from using other information provided within the same reporting to gain access to critical systems. When looking to mitigate risk by hardening systems, it is recommended to not underestimate the vulnerability of lesser, ‘unimportant’ systems as they can be used as gateways to enter information systems that contain confidential/proprietary information. The same concept applies to the sharing of information, it is just as important to ensure that nothing else in the details being provided will give clues to what is being redacted or changed.
Confidentiality is the one objective I did not think would be impacted by the safeguard of changing the data. Your example, however, makes a lot of sense. Redacting information can also draw more attention so ensuring nothing else in the details will give clues is very important. In my post I used the example from the FGDC relating to reducing the resolution of images of sensitive areas. By doctoring the photo, the visible differences may draw attention to the sensitive areas, which could impact the confidentiality.
Hi GB,
Thanks for the post. You pointed out that changing or summarizing data alone isn’t sufficient, as attackers might exploit weaker systems. I agree, but we should also account for internal risks, like mistakes or insider threats that could aid attackers. Do you think organizations should prioritize employee training in recognizing and preventing breaches over relying solely on technological safeguards?
Hi Gbolohan,
You make a great point here, initially I only thought of integrity and availability. I’d have to agree with you that Confidentiality should be included as well, there is always a chance that data could be disseminated by human error. Thank you for your insight!
The FGDC guidelines recommend two key safeguards: modifying the dataset or restricting access to it. Modifying the data involves removing or altering information to address security concerns before making it available. However, this can affect data integrity, as it may alter the original information. Restricting access, on the other hand, involves limiting who can access, use, or redistribute the data. While this enhances security, it can impact data availability, potentially leading to disruptions in access and use of the information.
I totally agree with your insights, availability ensures that authorized users have access to data “when they need it” any disruption to access information when needed impacts data availability.
Hi Cyrena,
I completely agree with your analysis regarding the impact of altering data and limiting access on data reliability and accessibility. A thought provoking question arises here though. Could giving precedence to security, over data accessibility potentially compromise the efficiency of decision making processes?
Hi James,
Great question! I understand how prioritizing security over data accessibility might slow decision-making. However, this highlights the importance of ensuring that data access aligns with roles and responsibilities. By giving the right people access to the necessary data for creating executive summaries, the decision-making process can continue smoothly without compromising security. This balance ensures both efficiency and protection.
The guidelines offer two options to safeguard data, first is to change the data, to remove or modify the sensitive information and then make the change data available, the alternative is to restrict the data. The security objective affected by data restriction is availability. availability ensures that authorized users can access and use information when they need it, the restriction of data means the information will not be available when needed.
The FGDC Guideline provides organizations with a method to balance the need for public access to geospatial data with the necessity of protecting sensitive information that could pose security risks. The Guideline offers two options if it is determined that data needs to be safeguarded: altering the data or restricting access to the data. These options can impact the security objectives of integrity and availability.
Data integrity refers to the accuracy, consistency, and reliability of data, ensuring that it remains unaltered. One example in the Guideline is lowering the resolution, eliminating pixels, or applying an algorithm that reduces sharpness if high-resolution orthophotography reveals too much detail about security systems at a sensitive facility. While this safeguard protects sensitive information, it risks compromising the integrity of the data, which can impact the organization’s decision-making process.
Data availability ensures that information is accessible whenever needed. This directly contradicts the safeguard of restricting access to the data. For example, the Guideline suggests making data available only to law enforcement, first responders, and emergency management agencies with use and redistribution restrictions. By reducing availability, organizations may be less equipped to make informed decisions.
Hi Brittany,
I agree with your point that the FGDC Guideline tries to balance public access to geospatial data while protecting sensitive information. However, I see a different angle here. While it’s true that altering or restricting data can affect its integrity and availability, the bigger question might be how these changes impact public trust and transparency. If organizations can reduce data availability too much, could it lead to a lack of accountability? How can we ensure that security measures don’t unnecessarily limit public access to important information? Overall, your post is thought-provoking and raises important questions. Well done.
Hi Brittany!
Fantastic response! I like how effectively convey how the safeguards can impact the security objectives with examples from the Guideline itself. To build off your points, I think the key challenge is balancing confidentiality with the need to maintain data integrity and availability. A great organization effectively balances the three core assets to ensure data and systems are secure and reliable. Organizations must carefully evaluate the risks associated with modifying or restricting data and implement solutions that safeguard sensitive information while maintaining its usefulness and accessibility.
The largest factor that is not addressed is availability. No recommendations are put in the document for how to best deal with the availability of the information needed. While it is understandable that it is not a focus of the document as it only addresses data. It is something that should be considered simply because the solution implemented without guidelines to ensure availability could introduce additional vectors of attack into the system. At the bare minimum I believe that the document should be altered to clarify the security requirements for gaining access to the data and how the data is expected to be accessed.
I struggled with this aspect of the reading as well. It seems in theory the safeguard of restrict the access is easy but it’s much more complex than a simple button. The guideline notes that “you must decide if your organization has the authority to restrict the data. Some organizations have laws, regulations, policies, or concerns about liability that compel them to release data. Others have clear authority to restrict data. If you are unsure of your organization’s authority or policy, seek a policy decision from appropriate executive managers or legal counsel in your organization.” I do believe more context around expectations of access and requirements would be helpful.
The notion that availability has become an after-thought is in fact correct. If the information being shared is not available in a reliable and timely fashion, then it defeats the purpose of sharing the data to begin with. Another thought that begins in my mind is with the integrity of the information being dissemintated, what safeguards are put in place in regards to verifying the authenticity of the information being shared? There is a real risk of an organization unknowingly getting a copy of the data from the wrong source and having advance persistent threats running within their systems.
The FGDC guidelines justified two options if the data needed to be safeguarded. The first option is to change the data to remove or modify the sensitive information and then make the changed data available without further safeguards. Going back to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data I feel that integrity is at risk using this safeguard. The goal of data integrity is that the information is not to be changed or altered. Furthermore, the risk of changing the data and it not being properly logged or monitored is extremely high, leaving information vulnerable. The second option given in the FGDC guidelines is to restrict the data. in doing this it will affect the ability for employers to access information and can negatively affect employers’ ability to analyze data and information.
You’ve raised a valid concern about the integrity risks associated with modifying sensitive data, as altering the data can undermine its accuracy and reliability. Restricting access to the data, while protecting its confidentiality and integrity, could indeed hinder the ability of employers to effectively utilize and analyze the information, highlighting the need for a balanced approach in data safeguarding.
Per the FGDC guidelines, ‘Change the data’ or ‘Restrict the data’ is proposed as a safeguard to reduce risk. However in doing so, such actions conflict with the security objectives of Integrity and Availability. The changing or modification of any data destroys the integrity of the data, whilst restricting puts availability at risk because data is only accessible to certain individuals as opposed to others.
Hi Ericberto!
Great response about how integrity and availability are at risk due to restricting access and changing the data! To expand and depict risking availability with an example, in the healthcare system, if senior doctors are only authorized to sensitive data, then junior doctors would have a delay in treatment when needed to pull the records in an emergency. The lack of response in a situation like this can be catastrophic for patients.
Hi Ericberto,
I had the same thought about “change the data.” Security objectives are CIA (confidentiality, integrity, and availability) but to “change the data” directly conflicts with the integrity aspect.
Neel, I initially restricting the data would conflict with availability, but I struggled with understanding whether restricting the data is the correct action when information needs to be safeguarded. However, after reading your example about healthcare, it is a little clearer that this can cause an issue and conflict with CIA objectives.
If the backup measures suggested in the FGDC guidelines are implemented, the availability objective could be compromised. For instance, opting for a less costly technical control to cut expenses could result in longer periods of system unavailability or delays in accessing critical systems. This trade-off may disrupt business activities, causing potential and significant harm especially in situations where uninterrupted availability is crucial.
The FGDC guidelines support two options if the data needs to be safeguarded. The first option is modifying the data or restricting access. These options can impact the security objectives of integrity and availability. Integrity is guarding against improper information modification. If there is the aggregation or changing of data, then there comes a risk that details can be misrepresented; thus; it can result in information becoming incorrect or incomplete. This comprises data integrity and can ultimately affect the decision-making process.
Availability ensures that information is accessible to authorized users when needed. If the safeguards of critical data lead to complex access controls, productivity and decision-making in time-sensitive situations can be negatively impacted.
In essence, the safeguards of modifying data or restricting access can impact the integrity and availability of data, which as a result, can affect how timely and effectively decisions are made in an organization.
Neel, Your points on the FGDC guidelines highlight key considerations for data safeguarding. Balancing security with data integrity and availability is challenging. Modifying or restricting data access can jeopardize both integrity and availability. Accurate data is crucial for reliable decision-making, while overly complex access controls can delay access in critical situations. Addressing these challenges involves using technology that ensures secure access without compromising data integrity. Advanced encryption and user-friendly access controls can help protect sensitive data while maintaining operational efficiency and timely decision-making.
The publication suggests that the security objective’s integrity and availability are more likely to possibly be put at risk if the alternative safeguard recommended by the FGDC guidelines is applied. However, if the validity of the human element’s recommendation (particularly those in the best position to evaluate the security objective) can be determined, it should counter the risk potential. The risk factor should be given priority if and only if those who are implementing alternative safeguards aren’t qualified or negligent in their performance. It is only in that case that erroneous modifications and omissions involving information and data would occur.
That’s a good point that I feel as though a lot of hierarchical decision trees and policies can really stumble at. What do you do if the person that is in charge of approving the decisions is unqualified or unavailable? I really do think that guidelines like these need to outline clear criteria for what decision should be made around the data.
When applying the alternative safeguards recommended by the FGDC guidelines, the most at risk information security objectives are integrity and availability. If the safeguard involves modifying or summarizing sensitive data to protect confidentiality, this could lead to errors or loss of detail, putting integrity at risk. Also, if the safeguard is restricting data access, the information’s availability might be compromised.
Limiting access to only specific users could slow down processes or prevent authorized users from accessing critical information when needed, especially in time sensitive situations like emergencies. Balancing these objectives is crucial to ensure that while protecting confidentiality, the organization doesn’t hinder its operational efficiency.
Security objectives Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability is the foundation for a successful security foundation. The FGDC guidelines recommend two key safeguards: modifying the dataset or restricting access to it. Modifying the data compromises the integrity of the data by removing or altering information before making it available. Restricting access compromises the availability of the data by limiting who can access the data and possibly where the data can be accessed. Understandably so, this may be necessary in some circumstances and cause issues in other. Before compromising the data or restricting access, a security professional should read the FGDC guidelines in detail and be sure that it is absolutely necessary.